Dismissed

Laxman Balaji Phatangare v. Deepak Laxman Phatangare and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2013WP/77/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction to police to register an offence and direction to private respondents to permit removal of articles. The High Court held alternative remedies existed for the first prayer and writ cannot lie against private persons for the second, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.

Laxman Balaji Phatangare Vs Deepak Laxman… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP77_2013

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 77 OF 2013

¶5

Laxman Balaji Phatangare … Petitioner vs. Deepak Laxman Phatangare & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. P.M. Khankar for the petitioner. Mr. K.V. Sasthe, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 17^th April, 2013.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶10

the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to register an offence on the basis of report/complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner further prays that a writ be issued directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are son and daughter-in-law of the petitioner, to permit the petitioner to remove his valuable/articles which are lying in the flat.

¶11

A reference at this juncture usefully be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court Aleque Padamsee & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 171, Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 907 and Kunga Nima Lepcha & Ors. vs. State of Sikkim & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 513. As per the decisions of the Supreme Court

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

WP77_2013

¶14

adverted to above, the petitioner has alternative remedy available to him in law i.e. either filing of a private complaint or an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By refusing to grant relief to the petitioner in respect of prayer clause (a) to the petition, we relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him in law.

¶15

In respect of prayer clause (b) to the petition, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2, who are private persons. The petitioner may avail the remedies available to him in law in respect of aforesaid reliefs.

¶16

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶17

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶18

(P.V. HARDAS, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

Laxman Balaji Phatangare v. Deepak Laxman Phatangare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Balaji Phatangare v. Deepak Laxman Phatangare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintya @ Bhimrao Vasant Salve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kiran Uttamrao Hole and Anr. Vs the State of Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sharad Jairam Shelke and Ors. Vs Sai Ram Co- Operative Housing Society Ltd, and Ors.

Chandra Shankar Rama Pujari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas Ambaji Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ilyas Suleman Patel and Ors. Vs Jaihind Welfare Soceity and Anr.